Delhi District Court
State vs Avkesh Jha on 29 October, 2025
SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAHAY SAXENA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 210/2024)
CNR No. DLNT01-004973-2024
FIR No. 603/2021
Police Station : Model Town
Under Section : 393/398/452/482 IPC & 25 Arms Act
State V/s Avkesh Jha
S/o Chander Shekhar Jha
R/o Khasra No. 228,
Gali No. 22, Manav Kunj,
Mukundpur Ext. II,
Delhi.
.... Accused
Date of committal to 08.04.2024
this court
Date of final 25.10.2025
arguments
Date of Judgment 29.10.2025
Appearance : Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. S.P. Pandey, Ld. counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
1. On 16.09.2021 at 16.45.08, an information was received at police station Model Town to the effect that "Caller ne yaha par gali me ek anjaan aadmi ko pakada h jiske pass Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 1 of 21 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:17 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha hathiyaar bhi h, need help", which was reduced into writing vide DD No. 63A, and was assigned to HC Rajbir. Thereafter at 16.51.40, another information was received from another caller (female) to the effect that a dummy pistol and blade have been recovered from the apprehended boy and they need help. The said DD was also assigned to HC Rajbir.
2. On being assigned the said DDs, HC Rajbir along with Ct. Monu reached at the spot, where the complainant produced one boy / accused Avkesh Jha and narrated the entire incident. IO HC Rajbir recorded the statement of complainant to the effect that 2-3 days prior to the incident in question, his mother informed him that a boy had visited their house, pretending himself to be the salesman on behalf of Country Delight Milk, for supplying milk samples but she refused. On 16.09.2021 at about 4.30 PM, the complainant along with his mother was present at his house, when the accused rang the door bell of their house, his mother opened the door of the house. On seeing the accused, the mother of complainant told his son that accused was the same boy, who had visited their house earlier. When the complainant opened the door and tried to have a conversation with the said boy, the said boy took out a pistol like weapon, pointed out the same on his forehead / ear and took him and his mother inside the house and bolted the door from inside. Accused made the complainant fell down on Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 2 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:25 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha the ground and tried to tie his hands with a tape, which he was carrying in his bag. The mother of complainant raised an alarm, upon which the neighbours gathered outside their house. In the meantime, accused threatened the complainant and his mother with life to bring cash and jewellery. Someone called the police and by the time police arrived at the spot, the complainant with the help of his neighbours apprehended the accused. On arrival of police at the spot, complainant handed over the accused to the police along with the said dummy pistol and three bundles of tape. On cursory search of accused, one buttondar knife was recovered from the accused.
3. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, IO got registered the present FIR, carried out the further investigation and arrested the accused. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Avkesh Jha. After cognizance was taken by the Ld. Magistrate, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial.
CHARGE
4. Charge was framed against the accused Avkesh Jha for offences punishable under Section 452/393/398/482 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to charge and claimed trial. Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 3 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:32 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During trial, prosecution examined four witnesses in all. S.No Witness Description of testimony
1. PW SI Kesha Ram Duty Officer.
2. PW 2 Ct. Monu Joined investigation with IO.
Tomar.
3. PW 3 Atul Jain. Complainant.
4. PW 4 HC Rajbir Investigating Officer.
Singh.
Documents relied upon by the prosecution :
S.No. Nature of document Exhibit 1. Copy of FIR. Ex. PW 1/A. 2. Endorsement on Rukka. Ex. PW 1/B. 3. Certificate u/s 65 B Evidence Act. Ex. PW 1/C. 4. Sketch of knife. Ex. PW 2/A. 5. Seizure memo of knife. Ex. PW 2/B.
6. Seizure Memos of dummy pistol and Ex. PW 2/C & bag containing three bundle tapes & Ex. PW 2/D. one stationery cutter blade.
7. Seizure Memo of bike. Ex. PW 2/E.
8. Arrest Memo of accused. Ex. PW 2/F.
9. Personal Search memo of accused. Ex. PW 2/G.
10. Disclosure statement of accused. Ex. PW 2/H.
11. Statement of complainant. Ex. PW 3/A.
12. Sketch of Dummy Pistol. Ex. PW 3/B.
13. DD No. 58 A. Ex. PW 4/A. Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 4 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:39 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha
14. DD No. 63 A. Ex. PW 4/B.
15. Endorsement of IO on rukka. Ex. 4/C.
16. Site Plan. Ex. 4/D.
17. Dummy pistol, light green colour bag, Ex. P1 three tapes, fake number plate bearing (collectively) no. DL-4SRC-3618, one paper cutter and one set of key ring having two keys.
32. Knife. Ex. P2.
DEFENCE CASE
6. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused Avkesh Jha denied all the allegations and claimed false implication. He claimed that while he was drinking water on the roadside, public persons under mistaken belief apprehended him alleging that he was a thief. He tried to make the public persons understand but they did not, and thereafter police took him to PS Model Town. He opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Girish Giri, Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and Sh. S.P. Pandey, Ld. counsel for accused and have considered the rival contentions put forth by both the parties, gone through the relevant case law and have scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution including the written submissions filed by the Nisha Sahay FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 5 of 21 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:46 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha defence.
ANALYSIS & REASONING
8. The present case of alleged attempt to commit robbery was primarily hinging on the testimony of the complainant Atul Jain and his mother. Complainant Atul Jain has been examined in the court as PW 3, but his mother has neither been cited nor examined in the court, for the reasons unexplained. As such, apart from police personnel, the only public witness examined by the prosecution, is complainant Atul Jain, on whose testimony, the case of prosecution rests.
9. PW 3 Atul Jain in his testimony before the court deposed that his mother told him that one boy had come to their house, continuously for two days and claimed that he was a salesman from Country Delight Milk and wanted to give milk samples, but she refused to take any milk or samples. He tried to convince his mother that the samples were free but his mother refused to take the same and thereafter, the said boy left their house.
10. As regards the incident dated 16.09.2021, PW 3 deposed that on the fateful day, at about 4.00 PM, he along with his mother was present at their house, when accused Avkesh (correctly identified) came to their house and rang the Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 6 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:51 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha bell, pursuant whereto his mother opened the door and found the accused, who suddenly took out one pistol and pointed towards his mother. His mother raised an alarm and he immediately came out. His mother told him that accused is the same boy who was coming to their house for supplying milk for the last 3-4 days. He asked the accused not to enter their house but the accused threatened him and asked to bring cash. PW 3 further deposed that the accused pushed him, due to which he fell down. In the meantime, their neighbour Vishal who is residing on the first floor, heard the alarm raised by them and he also raised an alarm. After hearing the alarm, accused tried to run away from their house but the residents of their building and public persons, apprehended him. Somebody called the police at 100 number, where-after police reached at the spot, and he came to know from the police that the pistol shown by the accused was dummy. PW 3 further deposed that thereafter, the police took the accused to police station and he also reached there, and the police recorded his statement Ex. PW 3/A. He further deposed that the accused was carrying one bag, and one cutter and a tape, which were recovered from his bag.
11. MHC(M) produced one unsealed light green colour bag American Tourister, one dummy pistol, three bundles of tape and yellow / red colour cutter, which were identified by Nisha Sahay FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 7 of 21 Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:09:58 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha PW 3 Atul Jain as Ex. P-1. However, he failed to identify the remaining articles viz bag, knife, number plate and key ring along with two keys.
12. The prosecution, with permission of the court, put leading questions to the witness, where-after PW 3 deposed that the accused had also pointed out the pistol towards him, also locked the main door from inside and also tried to tie his hands with tape. He deposed that he did not remember whether accused had also threatened them with life, if they did not give him cash and jewellery. He denied the suggestion that the accused had also demanded jewellery from him and his mother.
13. On being shown a buttondar knife, the witness deposed that that he did not remember whether the said knife was recovered from the possession of accused. He denied the suggestion that the said knife was also recovered from the possession of accused and was seized in his presence, though he identified his signatures on seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B. He did not remember whether any fake number plate was seized by the IO and even on being shown the number plate, the witness deposed that he could not identify the same. He denied the suggestion that the said number plate was seized in his presence, though he identified his signature on the sketch of the knife Ex. PW 2/A. He denied the suggestion that police had Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 8 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:10:03 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha prepared the sketch of knife in his presence.
14. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW 3 Atul Jain deposed that he did not remember whether any case property was sealed in his presence or not. He denied the suggestion that he was identifying the accused at the instance of police or that the accused did not enter in their house or threaten them by pointing pistol at them.
15. The first allegation against the accused is that he trespassed into the house of complainant, duly armed with a buttondar knife and attempted to commit robbery, punishable under Section 452/393/398 IPC. For ready reference, the said provisions are being reproduced herein below :
Section 452 IPC : Whoever commits house- trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 393 : Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 398 : If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 9 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:10:10 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
16. In order to prove the charges for the offence punishable under Section 452/393/398 IPC, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant PW 3 Atul Jain. On sifting through the testimony, it is clear that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of said witness, if the same is compared to his initial statement / complaint to the police Ex. PW 3/A.
17. In his statement to the police, the complainant complained that after the accused rang the bell, his mother opened the door of their house and on identifying the accused as the same person, who had visited their house for supplying milk samples, she informed her son. As soon as the complainant came towards the door, the accused pointed out a pistol like weapon on his head / ear and took them inside the house and bolted the door.
18. On the other hand, complainant as PW 3 in his testimony in the court deposed that initially the accused pointed out the pistol at his mother, pursuant whereto she raised an alarm, on hearing which he came out. In his testimony as PW 3 he further deposed that the accused threatened and asked him Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 10 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:10:16 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha to bring cash from inside the house. On being put leading questions by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW 3 deposed that he did not remember whether accused had also threatened them with life, if they did not give him cash and jewellery. He denied the suggestion that accused had also demanded jewellery from him and his mother. Whereas, in his complaint to the police, he had submitted that accused threatened and asked them to bring the entire cash and jewellery, else he would fire upon them.
19. In his complaint, the complainant also mentioned that the accused bolted the door from inside but in his examination in chief, he did not depose so and only on being put leading question by prosecution, he deposed that the accused had also locked the main door from inside.
20. If that was the case, who opened the door and how the complainant and his mother were able to over power the accused, has no where been explained by the complainant. The complainant in his testimony as PW 3 deposed that he came to know from the police that the pistol shown by the accused was dummy. However, the perusal of GD No. 58 which was recorded on the fateful day at 16.51.40, reveals that the caller had informed the police that the boy, who had been apprehended, was carrying a "Nakli Bandook" / dummy pistol.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 11 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:10:24 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha Perusal of the same further reveals that the caller of the second GD bearing no. 58 A was a female. Though the identity of the said caller is not disclosed in the said GD, but on a prudent assumption, it can be assumed that the said caller was the mother of the complainant. In that case, how she came to know that the weapon allegedly carried by the accused, was a dummy pistol, has not been explained, as she has neither been examined nor cited as a witness.
21. The complainant as PW 3 deposed that the police took the accused to police station and he also reached there. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW 3/A. Whereas, as per PW 2 Ct. Monu Tomar and PW 4 IO HC Rajbir Singh, the statement of complainant was recorded at the spot, on the basis of which IO prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Monu, who went to the police station, got registered the FIR and returned back to the spot to hand over the copy of FIR and original Tehri to the IO.
22. Further, it is to be noted that as per PW 2 Ct. Monu Tomar on receipt of DD No. 58 A and DD No. 63 A, he along with IO ASI Upender reached at the spot. The said IO ASI Upender has not been cited as a witness in the list of witnesses by the prosecution. It has also not been explained which part of investigation was carried out by ASI Upender. It is to be noted Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 12 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:10:45 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha that except for the testimony of PW 2 Ct. Monu Tomar and second line of Column no. 16 of Charge-sheet, there is no mentioning of said ASI Upender, and as per the prosecution case, the IO of the present case is HC Rajbir Singh, who conducted the entire investigation.
23. It is to be noted further that PW 4 IO HC Rajbir Singh in his cross examination deposed that after he reached at the spot, he stayed there till 12.30 AM, and arrested the accused at the spot at about 12.30 AM. Whereas, arrest memo of accused Ex. PW 2/F, shows the time of arrest of accused as 1.10 AM.
24. Further more, the delay in lodging the FIR has not been explained either by the complainant or the IO. It is the case of the prosecution that on recording of GD No. 63 A at 16.45.08 and thereafter second GD No. 58 A at 16.51.40, IO HC Rajbir Singh along with Ct. Monu Tomar immediately reached at the spot, where they were handed over the custody of accused along with case property. Thereafter, the IO recorded the statement of complainant. Endorsement Ex. PW 4/C made by the IO HC Rajbir Singh on the rukka, reveals that the same was sent to police station through Ct. Monu Tomar at 11.55 PM and the FIR was registered on 17.09.2021 at 00.26 hours. What was the reason for the delay of about six hours in Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 13 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:10:52 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha lodging the FIR, has not been explained either by the complainant or by the police officials.
25. In Satpal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 714, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed ".... Delay in lodging of the FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same......"
26. Further more, it is to be noted that PW 4 IO HC Rajbir Singh admitted it to be correct that he had not sealed the bag containing the articles and dummy pistol. He had not recorded the statement of neighbourers, who apprehended the accused in the stairs and in the gali. He even did not record the statement of mother of victim. No explanation has been furnished by IO as to why he did not seal the bag containing the case property, or as to why he did not record the statement of mother of the complainant, who allegedly a victim herself and witness of the entire incident.
Nisha
Sahay
Saxena
FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 14 of 21
Digitally signed by
Nisha Sahay Saxena
Date: 2025.10.30
10:10:58 +0530
SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha
27. As per PW 4, he prepared the site plan Ex. PW 4/D at the instance of the complainant, but the same does not bear the signature of complainant, nor he has deposed that any site plan was prepared at his instance.
28. The failure of the case can majorly be ascribed to a glaring shoddy investigation and a lackadaisical approach. The case has been damaged by serious procedural lapses, including the failure to bring on record forensic samples, contradictory and unreliable witness testimonies, and the prosecution's inability to establish that it is the accused only who committed the crime.
29. In case Kailash Gour Vs. State of Assam 2012 (1) LRC 81 (SC) it was observed as under:
"28. It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved to be guilty. It is equally well settled that suspicion howsoever strong can never take the place of proof. There is indeed a long distance between accused `may have committed the offence' and `must have committed the offence' which must be traversed by the prosecution by adducing reliable and cogent evidence. Presumption of innocence has been recognised as a human right which cannot be wished away. See Narendra Singh and Anr. v. State of M.P. (2004) 10 SCC 699 and Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsingh Sharma v. State of Mahsrashtra and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 294. To the same effect is Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 15 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:11:05 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha the decision of this Court in Ganesan v. Rama Sraghuraman and Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 83 where this Court observed: "Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The Presumption of innocence is human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India."
29. The above views were reiterated by this Court in State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC324."
30. In Ganga Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2013) 7 SCC 278, it was observed that court should not acquit the accused on the ground that there were some defects in investigation, but if the defects in the investigation were such as to cast a reasonable doubt about the prosecution case, then the accused is entitled to acquittal because of such doubt.
31. In Surjit Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal, (2013) 2 SCC 146, after referring to several earlier decisions, it has been held that deficiencies in investigation by way of omission and lapses by the investigating agency cannot themselves justify total rejection of the prosecution case and where prosecution evidence de hors such lapses, when carefully scrutinized and evaluated, does not affect the object of finding of truth. At the same time, it cannot be accepted as a broad proposition that in no case shoddy or defective investigation would not result in acquittal. Investigation must be precise and should not be Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 16 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:11:11 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha having glaring loopholes, which create doubt as to whether the offence was committed by the person charged or not. This is impermissible.
Section 482 IPC
32. The accused has also been charged for the offence punishable u/s 482 IPC for using false property mark and for having affixed a wrong / fake number plate on the motorcycle, which he allegedly used to go to the house of complainant. For ready reference, the said provision of law is being re-produced herein below :
Section 482 : Whoever uses any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
33. Though the seizure memo Ex. PW 2/E of motorcycle allegedly used by the accused for commission of offence, mentions that the said motorcycle, on its back, was having number plate whereupon DL-4S-RC-3618 was engraved and on the number plate of front side number L-4S-RC-36 was engraved. PW 3 Atul Jain, the only independent witness examined by the prosecution failed to identify the same. He even denied the suggestion put to him by the prosecution, that the said number plate was seized in his presence.
Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 17 of 21 Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:11:20 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha
34. PW 4 in his cross examination deposed that he was saying that the number plate was fake, as one number plate was affixed over another, however, he did not ascertain from any authority that the number was actually false. Whereas in seizure memo of motorcycle Ex. PW 2/E, it is mentioned that on being checked, the original registration number of the said motorcycle was found to be DL-8S-CW-5333.
35. It is also to be noted that PW 4 in his cross examination admitted it to be correct that he did not record the statement of owner of motorcycle. Though, in the disclosure statement Ex. PW 2/H, it is mentioned that he borrowed the motorcycle of his friend for committing the alleged crime, as to why the statement of his said friend was not recorded after the arrest and recording of disclosure statement of accused or after the said alleged friend / registered owner Deepak Rathore moved an application for release of the motorcycle on superdari, remains unexplained.
36. As such, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 482 IPC as well.
Section 25 Arms Act.
37. The accused has also been charged for the offence Nisha Sahay Saxena Digitally signed FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 18 of 21 by Nisha Sahay Saxena Date: 2025.10.30 10:11:27 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha punishable under Section 25 Arms Act for allegedly being found in possession of a buttondar knife in contravention of Section 3 of Arms Act.
38. On this aspect, PW 3 Ct. Monu Tomar and PW 4 IO HC Rajbir Singh deposed that on cursory search of accused one buttondar knife was recovered. They proved the sketch of the same as Ex. PW 2/A and seizure memo of the same as Ex. PW 2/B. They identified the said knife as Ex. P-1 (collectively). However, the only independent public witness examined by the prosecution i.e. PW 3 Atul Jain deposed that he could not identify the knife. As discussed above the said knife was kept in a bag, which was never sealed. Even on being put a leading question by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, PW 3 deposed that he did not remember whether the said knife was recovered from the possession of accused, though he identified his signature on seizure memo Ex. PW 2/B.
39. No other public person was joined in the investigation at the time of cursory search of accused / recovery of knife. Ld. defence counsel has argued that no such knife was ever recovered from the accused and this is reason, no public person has been cited as a witness to the alleged recovery of knife. He further argued that as per the prosecution Nisha Sahay story, knife was recovered from left pocket of the accused, Saxena Digitally signed by Nisha Sahay Saxena FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 19 of 21 Date: 2025.10.30 10:11:34 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha whereas the accused is a right handed person.
40. Further more, the apprehension / search of the accused was made in the day time and number of public persons including neighbours of complainant were present but none of them have been joined in the investigation. Ld. counsel for defence has relied upon Radha Bai Vs. State of Haryana, 2015 (2) RCR (CRL) 713, wherein it has been held that "where the place of recovery is busy place and the presence of number of independent witness cannot be disputed and no independent witness is associated, it becomes the duty of the court to scrutinize the prosecution case carefully, consciously and minutely. In that eventually, even the minor circumstances may assume significance. Similar was the view of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of Gurnam Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
41. In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This fundamental legal principle means the prosecution must present enough convincing evidence to establish the accused's guilt so clearly that any rational person would accept it as fact. If there is any reasonable uncertainty or a plausible alternative explanation consistent with innocence, the accused should not be convicted.
Digitally signed by Nisha Nisha Sahay FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 20 of 21 Sahay Saxena Saxena Date:
2025.10.30 10:11:42 +0530 SC No. 210/2024 State Vs. Avkesh Jha
42. The analysis of the material on record revealed several fundamental weaknesses in the prosecution's case that collectively undermined the reliability and credibility of the evidence presented.
43. Therefore this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
44. Hence, the accused Avkesh Jha is acquitted of the charges u/s 452/393/398/482 IPC and u/s 25 Arms Act. Bail bond of accused stands cancelled and his surety is discharged. Documents of the surety, if any retained on record, be released to him on appropriate applications being moved by him.
Accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10000/-, with one surety in the like amount, under provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (481 BNSS). Digitally signed Nisha by Nisha Sahay Saxena Announced in the open court Sahay 2025.10.30 Date:
today i.e. 29th October, 2025. Saxena 10:11:52 +0530 (NISHA SAHAY SAXENA) Principal District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi FIR No. 603/2021 : PS Model Town Page 21 of 21